Planetary Annihilation's Economy System

+1, a planet is pretty much an entire map. Imagine destroying an entire map's worth of resources. its going to put a massive dent in the economy, even if they have 4 planets, a 4th of his economy and production just went down. and he cant get it back.

The planet in the video isn't very large.

The meaning of the statement being A or B?
A. That all planets ingame will be that small so losing one shouldent effect your economy much?
B. That there will be much larger planets ingame?

:?:

Hmmm, well quite the opposite actually. I'm thinking on a very, very large scale. I just hope I'm a little over-paranoid. Obviously it's all dependent on how the devs work two resources into the universal scale.

...but your example of destroying 10 extractors being a heavy blow to an economy... if you have a dozen extractors per world on average, and you own another dozen worlds... losing 10 would be mediocre.

There will be larger planets, depending on your computer.

viewtopic.php?p=510915#p510915

Excellent. :twisted:

This is way too contrived an example to have any meaning. A dozen worlds has no semantic meaning anyway because it depends on the size of the world etc.

Of course, but if you only have 2 worlds? Back to SC, if you have 75 drones....is losing 5 a big deal?

It's all relative. I think your idea of the planned scope/scale are off.

Mike

Can I say again, if blowing up a large planet doesn't even put a dent in your enemy's resources: You are playing on too big a "map"
This is why I don't play 4v4 maps with 2 people on SC

That's why I said "on average"... maybe a small planet has 5, and a really large rocky planet has 8... it was an estimate for an example.

But I'm not trying to start an argument here, I'm merely concerned that two resource types might be a little limited on such an epic scale. I can see it working quite well on the solar scale... but on a galactic scale?? Is it safe to say that a solar-sized map would be equivalent to a large SC2 map? If so, could you imagine how many SC2 maps would be in play at once if on the galactic scale? Taking out an opponent on one corner of the galaxy wouldn't mean a significant loss to resources unless each planet owned, or every extractor owned contributes to the overall resource cap (if there is one).

Again, if I owned 12 planets of various sizes. Somebody blows up 5 of them. Does this change the number of troops I'll be able to make? Is there a cap on population? How much resources will I be able to hold at once? Will the amount of resources that you can generate at once scale to the rate at which you can produce an army in some way?

What you say has a lot of merit. I'm just not sure of the scale that we'll see a PA game be at.

Umm i think people are starting to get a bit too caught up in what would happen to the economy if this or that happened. The game isn't even in alpha yet and i don't even think the devs have had a chance to really test out the new economy, this is all hypothetical at the moment.

My opinion would be to hold off on asking anything too specific about the economy.

There is no Galactic scale, Galactic War is only a meta-game you link up a series of Skirmishes.

Should you have 12 planets(again, you need to tone down your scope) and 5 were hit with KEWs, you'd lose the income they provided, thusly you'd be able to produce less.

There is no supply resource, given enough time you can build thousands of units off of one extractor, of course that would take a hell of a long time.

Nothing is tied directly to the number of planets you 'own'.

You metal income is based on how many extractors you have, your capacity to build an army is based on how many factories you have, you storage is tied to how many storage buildings you make(and possibly based on some built in storage on some units/structures, we don't know for sure yet)

Have you ever played TA or SupCom?

Mike

Oh, I wasn't aware of the galactic war being a meta game like that; I must have missed that word in the description. lol Alright that's better then.

And of course I have played both of those games... but the scale of this game is much more vast. Why would they matter? Just because PA shares a heritage doesn't mean they'll play out the same... if TA was 10 times its size, that would on its own completely change the game. Scale is important.

...and losing resources wouldn't matter if you had more resources than you could use.

That's fair...

Though I must say that it's fairly important that you don't make mistakes on this scale during the design phase (not saying it is one). So it's important to get all perspectives out before you go further. That's all I'm doing.

It's cool, these are important questions. I just think that people are kinda jumping the gun a bit since we don't even know if this economy has been tested yet. As i said, probably should wait till alpha and then start asking these sort of questions

If you're wasting resources your Macro is slipping, what's that supposed to prove?

Fact is that while the scale is different, the underlying systems are very similar.

Mike

Scale changes a lot... you can't just scale things up and expect them to work the same. And where would I be wasting resources exactly?

huh... regardless... we'll just have to see how it turns out. Hopefully the massive scale doesn't kill attrition tactics. With 2 resource types, it just makes it sound like any one planet will be no more valued than another (except for where all the tech is located).

I never said things wouldn't be different, just that the same/similar systems are in use.

To say that only having 2 resources(just like TA, SupCom, and Starcraft before it) is the reason that planets don't have any differentiating things is just plain wrong.

First, we don't know yet if or how positioning will work when it comes to planets, can you move from any planet directly to any other planet? Can you only travel 'so far' making planets with more connections more valuable? We don't know yet either way.

Second, What about the planet type? What about if a planet has a moon or not? Maybe certain planet types will favor bots or tanks, making it so that based on the primary composition certain planets will be more appealing.

What about other players? Do you want to disrupt thier expansion or expand yourself?

There are plenty of variables that can differentiate planets, focusing so much on the resources isn't seeing the whole picture.

Mike

I'm focusing on the resources only because that is what this topic is about.

But we won't really know how everything will function until we see it... I'm just thinking about the end of the kickstarter video where they blew the planet up. That in itself kind of eliminates any other value a planet may have. Why bother landing on a planet if you don't have to?

But again, I know these games have 2 resources... but the scale is different. I guess this is the first game of its type, so we'll just see how it works.